Crisanta Guido-Enriquez v. Alicia-Victorino

[SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY.
TANTUICO] 1
30. Chin Ah Foo , et. al. v. Concepcion et. al.  These various legal proceedings culminated in Doctors Domingo and
G.R. No. L-33281 March 31, 1930 De los Angeles being delegated to examine and certify the mental
Digest by: POBE condition of Chan Sam, which they did.
 After this report had been submitted, counsel for the oppositors
TOPIC: Hospitalization of Insane Person challenged the jurisdiction of the court.
 However, the respondent judge sustained the court's right to make
DOCTRINE: an order in the premises and allowed Chan Sam to leave the San
Lazaro Hospital to be turned over to the attorney-in-fact of his wife
The powers of the courts and the Director of Health are complementary each so that he might be taken to Hongkong to join his wife in that city.
with the other. As a practical observation, it may further be said that it is well
to adopt all reasonable precautions to ascertain if a person confined in an ISSUE: W/N a judge who ordered the confinement of an insane person in an
asylum as insane should be permitted to leave the asylum, and this can best asylum subsequently permit the insane person to leave the asylum without
be accomplished through the joint efforts of the courts and the Director of the acquiescence of the Director of Health NO
Health in proper cases.
FACTS: HELD:
 Article 8 of the Penal Code has not been impliedly repealed by section
 On November 15, 1927, one Chan Sam (alias Chin Ah Woo), was 1048 of the Administrative Code. Article 8 of the Penal Code and
charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the murder of section 1048 of the Administrative Code can be construed so that
Chin Ah Kim. both can stand together.
 Thereafter, the trial judge rendered judgment declaring the accused  Considering article 8 of the Penal Code as in force and construing this
not responsible for the crime, and dismissing the case, but requiring article and section 1048 of the Administrative Code, we think that the
the reclusion of the accused for treatment in San Lazaro Hospital, in Attorney-General was right in expressing the opinion that the
accordance with article 8 of the Penal Code, with the admonition that Director of Health was without power to release, without proper
the accused be not permitted to leave the said institution without judicial authority, any person confined by order of the court in an
first obtaining the permission of the court. asylum pursuant to the provisions of article 8 of the Penal Code.
 In compliance with this order, Chan Sam was confined for  We think also that the converse proposition is equally tenable, and is
approximately two years in San Lazaro Hospital. During this period, that any person confined by order of the court in an asylum in
efforts to obtain his release were made induced by the desire of his accordance with article 8 of the Penal Code cannot be discharged
wife and father-in-law to have him proceed to Hongkong. from custody in an insane asylum until the views of the Director of
 Opposition to the allowance of the motions came from the wife and Health have been ascertained as to whether or not the person is
children of the murdered man, who contended that Chan Sam was temporarily or permanently cured or may be released without
still insane, and that he had made threats that if he ever obtained his danger.
liberty he would kill the wife and the children of the deceased and  In other words, the powers of the courts and the Director of Health
probably other members of his own family who were living in are complementary each with the other. As a practical observation,
Hongkong. it may further be said that it is well to adopt all reasonable
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
[SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY. TANTUICO] 2
precautions to ascertain if a person confined in an asylum as insane

should be permitted to leave the asylum, and this can best be
accomplished through the joint efforts of the courts and the Director
of Health in proper cases.
 Various defenses were interposed by the respondents to the petition,

but we have not been impressed with any of them except the ones
which go to the merits. After thorough discussion, our view is that
while the respondent Judge acted patiently and cautiously in the
matters which came before him, yet he exceeded his authority when
he issued his orders of December 26, 1929, and March 17, 1930,
without first having before him the opinion of the Director of Health.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

Crisanta Guido-Enriquez v. Alicia-Victorino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crisanta Guido-Enriquez v. Alicia-Victorino

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crisanta Guido-Enriquez v. Alicia-Victorino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY.

precautions to ascertain if a person confined in an asylum as insane

 Various defenses were interposed by the respondents to the petition,

DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

You might also like